The case concerned an applicant of asylum in the Netherlands. The State Secretary for Justice and Security dismissed the applicant’s application and decided that the applicant be transferred to Italy under the Dublin III regulation. The applicant did not dispute that Italy was in principle responsible for examining his asylum application. However, he argued that the Secretary of State had not properly justified that the principle of mutual trust could still be relied upon with regards to Italy. The applicant argued that there was sufficient evidence that he would not receive adequate reception in Italy. The applicant pointed to the 'circular letter' of 5 December 2022 from which it followed that Italy had requested Member States to temporarily suspend transfers under the Dublin Regulation in connection with a shortage of reception facilities.

The District Court of the Hague stated that the failure or inability to provide reception to Dublin transferees is not separate from the assessment of the asylum application submitted by the applicant in the Netherlands, since it indicates the existence of systemic errors concerning reception conditions in Italy. Member States are obliged under the Reception Directive to provide reception for asylum seekers.

The court found that the Secretary of State had not given sufficient reasons why, in view of the indications that reception was not available in Italy for Dublin transferees, it could still rely on the principle of interstate trust. The court stated that, the argument of the Secretary of State that the suspension of Dublin transfers was only a temporary transfer impediment, was not a sufficient justification in this context.

Furthermore, the court stated that it was not possible to see how, without further information, the Secretary of State could take a proper view that the shortcomings were not fundamental or structural or, if they were, that the shortcomings did not reach the particularly high threshold of severity within the meaning of the Jawo judgment. Taking into account that the Italian authorities themselves have reported that reception was not available, or that there was a serious shortage of them, it was for the Secretary of State to investigate the actual reception situation in Italy before it could take the view that no situation would arise from the transfer to Italy that would be in breach of Article 4 of the EU Charter or Article 3 of the ECHR. The court thus found the appeal to be well founded, and annulled the contested decision. In addition, it instructed the Secretary of State to take a new decision in accordance with the court’s ruling.